Retrieve stream totals for a specified album within a user's listening history.
Stream totals for one album within a user library
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1–100. Default: 50 | |
| user_id | Yes | stats.fm user id or customId (e.g. "martijn") | |
| album_id | Yes | stats.fm album id | |
| response_format | No | 'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object | concise |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.29.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It gives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or external API dependencies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query-like tool, the description provides the essential subject and scope, and no output schema exists to document. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving some context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, including the enum for response_format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource ('album') and scope ('within a user library') and indicates the returned data ('stream totals'). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is reasonably clear and distinguishable from many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the primary use case—obtaining stream totals for one album for a given user—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related statsfm album tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.